California Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing criticism after the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a California law that prevented schools from informing parents if their child identified as transgender, as reported by the New York Post.

The Supreme Court order halts the enforcement of a state law Newsom signed in July 2024.

That law barred school districts from requiring teachers and staff to notify parents when a student changed their gender identification at school.

Image Credit: Savvapanf Photo - Shutterstock.com

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

The order also blocks a related rule that required teachers to use a student’s preferred pronouns.

Newsom criticized the court’s action in remarks to the New York Post on Tuesday, arguing that the decision interferes with classroom priorities and student privacy.

“Teachers should be focused on teaching — not forced to be gender cops,” Newsom said.

He also criticized the way the court handled the matter, adding, “The shadow docket ruling by the Supreme Court undermines student privacy and the ability to learn in a safe and supportive classroom, free from discrimination based on gender identity.”

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

The ruling sparked immediate pushback from Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, who argued that the governor’s position places ideology ahead of parental involvement.

Hilton told the Post that the decision highlighted broader disagreements over parents’ rights and school transparency.

“Yet again Gavin Newsom and the Democrats are putting their insane, fringe ideology ahead of common sense and parents’ rights,” Hilton said.

Image Credit: Sheila Fitzgerald - Shutterstock.com

“Most people look at this and can’t understand why it’s even a question: of course parents should be told if their children change their gender.”

Hilton also rejected the argument that parental notification could harm students.

“The justification Newsom claims for his parental secrecy policy is that without it, students will face harm. We have plenty of resources in California, inside and outside the school system, for any students who might be in that situation.”

“There is no justification for the Democrats’ parental secrecy policy, and it just shows how far gone they really are.”

He continued his criticism of the governor and state policies.

“They think kids belong to the government, not parents, and it is disgusting to see Newsom take the side of far left ideologues against families.”

“But no surprise from the guy who won’t do anything about biological boys in girls’ sports or evil child rapists being set free early.”

The Supreme Court’s decision came after religious parents and educators challenged California school policies designed to prevent schools from informing families about a student’s gender identity.

Two groups of Catholic parents represented by the Thomas More Society argued that the policies led schools to mislead parents and secretly assist children with social gender transitions, even when parents objected.

California officials defended the policies in court filings, arguing that students have a right to privacy about their gender expression, particularly if they fear rejection or harm from family members.

The state maintained that the law and related policies were intended to balance student privacy with parental rights.

However, the Supreme Court majority sided with the parents for now and reinstated a lower-court order blocking the California law and related school policies while litigation continues.

In an unsigned order, the majority wrote:

“The parents who assert a free exercise claim have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. California’s policies violate those beliefs,” and burden the free exercise of religion.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision and argued the case should continue moving through lower courts before the Supreme Court intervenes.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent:

“If nothing else, this Court owes it to a sovereign State to avoid throwing over its policies in a slapdash way, if the Court can provide normal procedures. And throwing over a State’s policy is what the Court does today.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have gone further by granting the teachers’ appeal seeking broader relief from restrictions tied to the policies.

The Thomas More Society praised the decision, calling it “the most significant parental rights ruling in a generation.”

The Supreme Court has recently ruled in several other cases involving parental rights and gender-identity policies in schools.

In another decision, the court allowed parents to remove their children from public-school lessons if they object to storybooks featuring LGBTQ+ characters.

The ruling regarding California policies also comes months after the court upheld state bans on gender-identity-related healthcare for minors.

The justices have also been considering cases related to whether states can prohibit transgender athletes from competing on girls' sports teams, an issue that remains the subject of ongoing legal battles.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.